I, in general, share your sentiments, but I wanted to pick up on one thing (which I also said on twitter originally)
For years, the EA community has emphasised the importance of integrity, honesty, and the respect of common-sense moral constraints. [...] A clear-thinking EA should strongly oppose “ends justify the means” reasoning. I hope to write more soon about this. In the meantime, here are some links to writings produced over the years. [emphases added]
While it might sound good to say people should be honest, have integrity, and reject ‘ends justify the means’ reasoning, I do see how you can expect people to do all three simultaneously: many people—including many EAs and almost certainly you, given your views on moral uncertainty—do accept that the ends sometimes justify the means. Hence, to go around saying “the ends don’t justify the means” when you think that, sometimes—perhaps often—they do, smacks of dishonesty and a lack of integrity. So, I hope you do write something further to your statements above.
It seems like the better response is to accept that, in theory, the ends can sometimes justify the means—it would be right to harm one person to save *some* number more—but then say that, in practice, defrauding people of their money is really not a time when this is true.
I agree… Was very bothered by the categorical proscriptions against “ends justifying the means” as well as the seeming statements that some kinds of ethical epistemology are outside of the bounds of discourse. Seemed very contrary to the EA norm of open discourse on morality being essential to our project.
I, in general, share your sentiments, but I wanted to pick up on one thing (which I also said on twitter originally)
While it might sound good to say people should be honest, have integrity, and reject ‘ends justify the means’ reasoning, I do see how you can expect people to do all three simultaneously: many people—including many EAs and almost certainly you, given your views on moral uncertainty—do accept that the ends sometimes justify the means. Hence, to go around saying “the ends don’t justify the means” when you think that, sometimes—perhaps often—they do, smacks of dishonesty and a lack of integrity. So, I hope you do write something further to your statements above.
It seems like the better response is to accept that, in theory, the ends can sometimes justify the means—it would be right to harm one person to save *some* number more—but then say that, in practice, defrauding people of their money is really not a time when this is true.
I agree… Was very bothered by the categorical proscriptions against “ends justifying the means” as well as the seeming statements that some kinds of ethical epistemology are outside of the bounds of discourse. Seemed very contrary to the EA norm of open discourse on morality being essential to our project.